Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EMMANUEL T. PONTEJOS v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 169042 2011-10-05	ERDITO QUARTO v. OMBUDSMAN SIMEON MARCELO BRION, J.
The Constitution and RA No. 6770 have endowed the Office of the Ombudsman with a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory powers, freed, to the extent possible within our governmental system and structure, from legislative, executive, or judicial intervention, and insulated from outside pressure and improper influence.[86] Consistent with this purpose and subject to the command of paragraph 2, Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution,[87] the Court reiterates its policy of non-interference with the Ombudsman's exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory powers (among them, the power to grant immunity to witnesses[88]), and respects the initiative and independence inherent in the Ombudsman who, "beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and the preserver of the integrity of the public service."[89] Ocampo IV v. Ombudsman[90] best explains the reason behind this policy: The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. Otherwise, the functions of the courts will be grievously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it, in much the same way that the courts would be extremely swamped if they could be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant.
	GR No. 189093 2010-04-23	PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER BRINGAS Y GARCIA VELASCO JR., J.
[121] Pontejos v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 158613-14, February 22, 2006, 483 SCRA 83, 96.
	GR No. 161455 2008-05-20	ATTY. RODOLFO D. PACTOLIN v. FOURTH DIVISION OF SANDIGANBAYAN VELASCO JR., J.
Neither do we agree with Pactolin that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction.[9] The rule in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case, be it dismissal, conviction, or acquittal of the accused, rests on the sound discretion of the court.[10] The only qualification to this exercise of judicial prerogative is that the substantial rights of the accused must not be impaired nor the People be deprived of the right to due process. As we have discoursed, no substantial right of Pactolin has been impaired nor has there been any violation of his right to due process. He had been adequately informed by the detailed litany of the charges leveled against him in the information. He had the occasion to confront witnesses against him and the opportunity to question documents presented by the prosecution. Under no circumstance in this case has his right to due process been violated.
	GR NOS. 167335 & 167337 2007-07-10	DR. ULYSSES A. BRITO v. OFFICE OF DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The function of determining what is sufficient evidence to establish probable cause is the job of the Office of the Ombudsman.[21] Except in cases when there is grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of its discretion, which is absent in the instant case, this Court has adopted a policy of non-interference in the exercise of the Ombudsman's constitutionally mandated powers on this matter.[22]
	GR NO. 168380 2007-02-08	MANUEL V. BAVIERA v. ESPERANZA PAGLINAWAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Concomitant with his authority and power to control the prosecution of criminal offenses, the public prosecutor is vested with the discretionary power to determine whether a prima facie case exists or not. [15] This is done through a preliminary investigation designed to secure the respondent from hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution. A preliminary investigation is essentially an inquiry to determine whether (a) a crime has been committed; and (b) whether there is probable cause that the accused is guilty thereof. [16] In Pontejos v. Office of the Ombudsman, [17] probable cause is defined as such facts and circumstances that would engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It is the public prosecutor who determines during the preliminary investigation whether probable cause exists. Thus, the decision whether or not to dismiss the criminal complaint against the accused depends on the sound discretion of the prosecutor.
	GR NO. 169098 2006-10-12	MANUEL BAVIERA v. ROLANDO B. ZOLETA CALLEJO, SR., J.
On the first issue, respondent Gutierrez contends that the proper remedy of petitioner to assail the Resolutions of the Ombudsman finding no probable cause for violation of R.A. No. 3019, Section 3(a), (e) and (j) was to file a petition for certiorari with this Court, not with the CA. In 1999, this Court ruled in Tirol, Jr. v. Del Rosario[28] that the remedy of the aggrieved party from a resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman finding the presence or absence of probable cause in criminal cases was to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in this Court. The Court reiterated its ruling in Kuizon v. Desierto[29] and Tirol, Jr. v. Del Rosario.[30] And on February 22, 2006, in Pontejos v. Office of the Ombudsman,[31] the Court ruled that the remedy to challenge the Resolution of the Ombudsman at the conclusion of a preliminary investigation was to file a petition for certiorari in this Court under Rule 65.